Stakeholder capitalism results in a loss of accountability, as executives who are responsible to everyone are responsible to no one. Stakeholder capitalism would be extremely difficult to implement. Proposed means of doing so – such as constituency boards, codetermination, and team production – are all unworkable. Stakeholder capitalism is inconsistent with democratic capitalism. Shareholder value maximization is the result that would emerge if shareholder and stakeholders could bargain (the so-called hypothetical bargain). Shareholder capitalism is pro-social. The profit motive results in socially efficient resource allocation. The profit motive is an essential motivational spark for innovation. The profit motive promotes freedom.

Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. is the seminal case on the fiduciary duties of corporate directors with respect to profit maximization. The chapter provides the factual context of the case and analyzes the law.

The 2019 shift in position by the Business Roundtable CEOs from their traditional embrace of shareholder value maximization to stakeholder capitalism attracted enormous attention. Oddly, however, the CEOs offered nothing but platitudes to explain their shift. This chapter explores possible explanations for their shift. Were the Business Roundtable CEOs woke? It is true that CEO activism leans left but the profit motive survives. Were the Business Roundtable CEOs responding to changes in consumer, investor, and labor demands? Were the Business Roundtable CEOs responding to Green Activist Investors? Were the Business Roundtable CEOs trying to fend off regulation? Were the Business Roundtable CEOs just cynical oligopolists? All of these prove possible but unlikely explanations. Two more plausible explanations are that the Business Roundtable CEOs were pining for the days of Imperial CEOs, because stakeholder capitalism inevitably means that CEOs are less accountable, and that the Business Roundtable CEOs were greenwashing.

OLD PROBLEM, NEW URGENCY

The spotlight has fallen on the persistent problem of forced labour in Malaysia lately, due to both infringements and policy responses. Forced labour encompasses harsh exploitation and abuse, but also less overt forms of coercion such as retention of passports, squalid living quarters and debt bondage, some of which have seemingly become endemic to the country. The intertwined phenomena of labour outsourcing and undocumented status have exacerbated worker vulnerability to forced labour conditions. Recent high-profile cases, especially involving import bans on rubber glove manufacturers and palm oil producers, and the country’s downgrade in the US Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report from three years in a row on Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 3 in 2021 and 2022 (US Department of 2021a; US Department of State 2022).

The past year also witnessed formal institutional landmarks in the fight against forced labour and the concurrent problem of human trafficking. In June 2021, Malaysia renewed its national action plan on trafficking in persons for a third five-year term (NAPTIP 3.0). On 26 November 2021, the National Action Plan on Forced Labour (NAPFL) was launched, which set the ultimate goal of eradicating the problem within a decade. This objective, oriented around justice and basic rights, fits within Malaysia’s professed adherence to decent work standards and its broader ambition of reducing reliance on labour-intensive, low-wage production, and fostering quality high-wage jobs.

Why does forced labour persist, and can Malaysia put an end to it by the target date of 2030? This article proceeds by surveying migrant flows and key features, followed by a brief overview of relevant laws and policies. We consider major structural and operational problems that have perpetuated forced labour, and Malaysia’s efforts to combat forced labour that were initiated prior to the pandemic. We then examine salient cases since 2020 that have dented Malaysia’s reputation and underscored the importance of a robust and credible response. The NAPFL’s scope and ambition may concur with the magnitude and complexity of the problem, but Malaysia must apply a more systemic approach and focus on effective and transparent implementation to deliver on the promise of eradicating forced labour.

• • Forced labour, encompassing various types of coercive practices and rights violations, is an entrenched problem in Malaysia. Recent years have seen more decisive and concerted efforts to resolve the problem and repair Malaysia’s damaged reputation, but the country’s forced labour woes escalated amid COVID-19, with exposés and trade embargoes in 2020–21.

• • Most consequentially, the US has imposed withhold release orders (WROs) on major rubber glove manufacturers and palm oil producers. For two consecutive years, 2021–22, Malaysia has occupied the lowest Tier 3 in the US Trafficking in Persons report. In November 2021, the country’s National Action Plan on Forced Labour (NAPFL), formulated through tripartite engagements with the participation of the International Labour Organization, was launched, with the third National Action Plan on Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP 3.0) operating in tandem.

• • The NAPFL outlines strategies and integrated measures for eventually eliminating forced labour by 2030, which requires systemic solutions commensurate with the magnitude of underlying problems. Forced labour has persisted despite the official termination of labour outsourcing and increased intergovernmental bilateral initiatives to better manage foreign worker flows.

• • Continual challenges in the labour supply industry and the administrative system, including the problematic overlapping powers of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Human Resources, complicate the creation and implementation of a more just, effective and accountable migrant worker system.

• • Government-to-government (G2) agreements, through Memorandum of Understanding, have become the established platform, but are marred by inconsistency and lack of transparency.

• • The new government of Malaysia will need to address deep-seated issues and confront vested interests, domestically and in the labour source countries, to realize the aspiration of eliminating forced labour by 2030.

The economic, political, strategic and cultural dynamism in Southeast Asia has gained added relevance in recent years with the spectacular rise of giant economies in East and South Asia. This has drawn greater attention to the region and to the enhanced role it now plays in international relations and global economics.

The sustained effort made by Southeast Asian nations since 1967 towards a peaceful and gradual integration of their economies has had indubitable success, and perhaps as a consequence of this, most of these countries are undergoing deep political and social changes domestically and are constructing innovative solutions to meet new international challenges. Big Power tensions continue to be played out in the neighbourhood despite the tradition of neutrality exercised by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The Trends in Southeast Asia series acts as a platform for serious analyses by selected authors who are experts in their fields. It is aimed at encouraging policymakers and scholars to contemplate the diversity and dynamism of this exciting region.